Tech billionaires are not content with influencing government from the sidelines — they are now attempting to build communities and quasi-states where they can write the laws, apply advanced tech freely, and escape the constraints of nation-states. In pitched experiments from Montenegro to Honduras to Northern California, entrepreneurs are trying to convert digital networks into living, breathing territories under their control.

Summary

The piece addresses the ideological roots (e.g. Balaji Srinivasan’s The Network State), the financing and governance challenges, the tensions with existing states, and the social equity questions of who gets to “exit” and who is left behind.

Vittoria Elliott’s recent investigative report, “Tech Billionaires Already Captured the White House. They Still Want to Be Kings” (Wired), explores a rising movement among tech elites to move beyond political influence and instead create physical enclaves—“network states,” special economic zones (SEZs), or charter cities—where they can govern by their own rules.

The article follows several key projects, such as Viva Frontier Tower (a “pop-up city” in San Francisco), the Zuzalu network, Praxis (digital-nation ambitions), and Próspera (a charter community in Honduras).

These experiments reveal the vision (and pitfalls) of a world in which wealthy tech founders attempt to build their own sovereign enclaves—escaping regulatory constraints, applying radical biomedical or AI experiments, and asserting new models of governance.

Why This Matters

• Shift in power from influence to sovereignty. Instead of lobbying or funding campaigns, this movement aims to shift power more radically by creating new territorial entities.
• Erosion of the Westphalian order. If realized at scale, these experiments could challenge assumptions about state sovereignty, citizenship, and the rule of law.
• Tech utopia risks inequality. These enclaves are likely to favor high-wealth elites. The poor, contractors, and service workers may have little power or an escape route.
• Geopolitical and regulatory blowback. Nation-states may react legally or militarily, creating tension between existing governance systems and these emergent enclaves.
• Precedent for governance via tokenization, AI, and biotech. These projects serve as testbeds for governance built with algorithmic, blockchain, or biotechnological tools—potentially foreshadowing experiments in mainstream states.

Key Points

1. Network states and “exit” ideology
   The concept (popularized by Balaji Srinivasan in The Network State) suggests that communities formed online can consolidate into real-world territory, with the right mix of governance, tech, and migration.
2. Pop-up cities as proof-of-concept
   Initiatives like Viva Frontier Tower in San Francisco and Zuzalu’s temporary cities test how communities might self-govern on a small scale before claiming land.
3. Ambitious city-building efforts
   Praxis aims to build a defense-tech city near Vandenberg Space Force Base and explore other sites globally. California Forever aims for large-scale development in Northern California.
4. Special economic zones and charter cities
   Próspera in Honduras is a functioning charter community with its own rules, arbitration system, and lower taxes—though its status has been contested by the local government.
5. Ideological drivers: tech utopianism + exit over voice
   Many in this movement see regulation as a drag on innovation and believe “exit” (moving to a new jurisdiction) is the only meaningful leverage.
6. Equity, legitimacy, and realism concerns
   Practical issues abound: who builds and maintains infrastructure; who gets citizenship; how to negotiate with existing states; how to handle dissent and basic services.

The Networked State and the “New Tech” Movement

The Networked State Defined

• Coined and popularized by Balaji Srinivasan, the “networked state” is the idea that digital-first communities—organized around shared values, coordinated through blockchain, platforms, and decentralized networks—can evolve into quasi-sovereign entities.
• These entities challenge the Westphalian nation-state model by organizing identity, governance, and even territory around the connective tissue of the internet rather than geography.

The “New Tech” Movement in Silicon Valley

• Often associated with “effective accelerationism” (e/acc), venture-backed futurism, and techno-optimism.
• Advocates for aggressively building and deploying frontier technologies (AI, crypto, biotech, space, energy) with less regard for traditional regulatory or political barriers.
• Frames itself in opposition to “Old Tech” (incumbent platforms like Google, Facebook, Microsoft) and regulatory capture, portraying them as stiflers of innovation.
• Prominent figures: Balaji Srinivasan, Marc Andreessen (a16z), Garry Tan, and various crypto/AI founders who argue Silicon Valley must “build” faster to outpace decline.

For the full investigative report from WIRED magazine, see:

Tech Billionaires Already Captured the White House. They Still Want to Be Kings (Vittoria Elliott, Wired) — The core article profiling how tech billionaires are attempting to build sovereign or semi-sovereign territories (network states, charter cities, SEZs), showing examples, ideologies, challenges, and risks.

What Next?

• Scale tests beyond pop-ups. Some of these projects will attempt full land acquisition, zoning agreements, and legal privileges with host states.
• Legal and geopolitical pushback. Host nations may revoke charters (as happened with Próspera in Honduras) or challenge sovereignty claims.
• Social tensions. As these enclaves expand, tensions may mount over inequality, labor rights, and integration with neighboring jurisdictions.
• Replication or failure. Some experiments will likely fail, while others may inspire copycats or hybrid models (e.g., semi-autonomous districts).
• Mainstream adoption. Some innovations in governance, biotech, and token-based infrastructure developed in these enclaves may seep into mainstream states or be co-opted by them.

Recommendations from the Investigative Report

1. Monitor emerging experiments. Governments, regulators, and civil society should closely track these projects to anticipate legal, social, and security implications.
2. Engage diplomatically now. Nation-states should consider preemptive regulatory frameworks or negotiation strategies for special zones or enclaves seeking exemptions or autonomy.
3. Prioritize rights and equity guardrails. Any enclave should embed transparent governance, labor protections, dispute resolution, and mechanisms for accountability to avoid plutocratic capture.
4. Build interoperability standards. As enclaves experiment with token-based governance, data sharing, identity systems, etc., interoperability with existing states and institutions must be considered.
5. Research risk scenarios. Think through failure modes: enclave collapse, regulatory sanctions, citizen exodus, and inter-jurisdictional conflicts. Prepare mitigation strategies.

Additional OODA Loop Resources

OODA Loop News Briefs and Original Analysis have tracked and researched topics related to this analysis for many years. Find links and posts organized and published in a very convergent, cross-disciplinary fashion at the following OODA Loop archival links:

• Disintermediation of the Nation State — OODAloop
• Disintermediation of the Defense Industrial Base — OODAloop
• Whiplash — OODAloop
• Reorientation — OODAloop
• Military Accelerationism — OODAloop
• Stochastic Terrorism — OODAloop
• Cognitive Infrastructure — OODAloop
• Cognitive Warfare — OODAloop
• Networked State — OODAloop
• Military Doctrine — OODAloop
• John Robb — OODAloop
• Effective Accelerationism — OODAloop
• Global Polycrisis — OODAloop